Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts!

Go Back   Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts! > >
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Welcome to Ford Ranger Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

  #16  
Old 09-28-2010, 04:00 PM
ER95 ER95 is offline
Not at the table, Carlos!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 931
Default Re: Reliability

Ok

I personally never driven a Ranger yet so I can't make statement that it's junk or not. I'm just reading opinions from others.
__________________
Future Ranger Owner
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-28-2010, 04:04 PM
EMB1230 EMB1230 is offline
On my 3rd Ranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to EMB1230 Send a message via Yahoo to EMB1230 Send a message via Skype™ to EMB1230
Default Re: Reliability

The OHC 2.3/2.5, 4.0 and DOHC 2.3 were all designed for RWD, the 3.0 was designed for FWD use which is probably why it is such a poor fit in a RWD vehicle.
__________________
1987 2.3/TK5, 125K.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-28-2010, 04:11 PM
ER95 ER95 is offline
Not at the table, Carlos!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 931
Default Re: Reliability

I see.

So why would the 3.0 do poorly in in RWD? Haha this answer is proably 200 - 300 words long...
__________________
Future Ranger Owner
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-28-2010, 04:12 PM
aaron_ariens aaron_ariens is offline
NO H8.
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,435
Send a message via AIM to aaron_ariens Send a message via MSN to aaron_ariens
Default Re: Reliability

Go out and drive some rangers for yourself.
__________________
2001 Ford Ranger XLT 3.0 V6 Automatic.
1995 Acura Integra LS
PNW Crew!
http://www.facebook.com/aaron.ariens

Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward View Post
Lol, Aaron: "I only text with trees, it makes it hard to text while driving though, I have to keep running the truck into trees to text!!" EPIC my friend. Lol
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-28-2010, 09:47 PM
OregonRanger OregonRanger is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3
Default Re: Reliability

3.0s are a ticking time bomb (JUNK). The cam sensor is where the distributor used to be. If the gear that drives the cam sensor fails, the engine will continue to run. The same gear drives the oil pump. The Vulcan engine will continue to run with no oil pump turning. That makes it junk in my book.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-28-2010, 10:09 PM
EMB1230 EMB1230 is offline
On my 3rd Ranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to EMB1230 Send a message via Yahoo to EMB1230 Send a message via Skype™ to EMB1230
Default Re: Reliability

If they are are so junky why is it commonplace for them to still be going strong at 200K+?
__________________
1987 2.3/TK5, 125K.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-28-2010, 10:40 PM
OregonRanger OregonRanger is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3
Default Re: Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB1230 View Post
If they are are so junky why is it commonplace for them to still be going strong at 200K+?
Uh, maybe the cam sensor gear didn't fail yet? Pretty "commonplace" for the engine to eat itself also.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Ranger_EDGE Ranger_EDGE is offline
SVT
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,522
Default Re: Reliability

wtf come on 3.0's are not junk motors give me a break. i've put my motor threw hell man and it is still here right? still starts up at 109,000k. cam sensor shit give me a break! i would be more worried about the timing chain stretching out over time then a cam sensor. any buddy with a 3.0 would say there great motors. people with 4.0 like to dog them because they think the 4.0 is so powerful. Which there not! if they were pushing 270H.P and getting 19mpg like all other motor companies out there with there 4.0's then i would say yea cool they have something to brag about. but there not that great in my i.m.o. pretty sad to have the same motor since 01 and have them still under power. The ranger is dead it self thats why ford is killing them off in the U.S because the new f150's will be pushing more M.P.G's in a full size truck now.
__________________
-1995 ford ranger prerunner, 4.0, 4x4, 5-speed, 62k original miles, 2.5 radflo bypass front and 2.5 radflo triple bypass rear, deavers f23, 4.56 gears front and back, 07 seats, 07 mirrors, 35x12.50 bfg a/t, 4" fiberwerk glass front and rear, eagle alloy rims, 6k hid heads, two 8k hid off road lights, 34" led light bar, bed/roll cage/engine cage, 25 gallon fuel cell, cut and extended beams/radius arms
-2000 ford SVT f150 lightning -SOLD Lifted 2001 Ford Ranger EDGE, April's 2012 TOTM
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:24 PM
Coleosis Coleosis is offline
The Sickest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 451
Default Re: Reliability

My 3.0 was reliable...until auto-trans problems.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-29-2010, 05:45 AM
CADreamin CADreamin is offline
Ford Tough
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 241
Default Re: Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB1230 View Post
If they are are so junky why is it commonplace for them to still be going strong at 200K+?
Exactly. Not to mention that the 3.0L Vulcan engine was one of the mainstays of the Taurus lineup, and we all know how many of those are out there running around years and many miles later. I have one in my driveway, in fact.

In fleet use alone, these engines get the crap beat out of them day in and day out, and keep going strong.

The engine is nothing great performance-wise, but given proper maintenance, its reliability has been well established.
__________________
2003 Ford Ranger XLT
4.0 SOHC
K&N Filter
Stepside Bed
Reese Class III/IV Hitch

Last edited by CADreamin; 09-29-2010 at 05:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-29-2010, 09:11 AM
EMB1230 EMB1230 is offline
On my 3rd Ranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to EMB1230 Send a message via Yahoo to EMB1230 Send a message via Skype™ to EMB1230
Default Re: Reliability

I think they are secretly Japanese built, lol. 200K is nothing for a Vulcan, they can go to 300K without needing any major work done. The Vulcan WAS designed for the Taurus. Interesting fact, originally, it was the optional engine until 1993 when it became the base engine because Ford ditched the weak-as hell HSC 2.5 I4 which no one really bought anyway.
__________________
1987 2.3/TK5, 125K.

Last edited by EMB1230; 09-29-2010 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-29-2010, 11:40 AM
ER95 ER95 is offline
Not at the table, Carlos!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 931
Default Re: Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger_EDGE View Post
wtf come on 3.0's are not junk motors give me a break. i've put my motor threw hell man and it is still here right? still starts up at 109,000k. cam sensor shit give me a break! i would be more worried about the timing chain stretching out over time then a cam sensor. any buddy with a 3.0 would say there great motors. people with 4.0 like to dog them because they think the 4.0 is so powerful. Which there not! if they were pushing 270H.P and getting 19mpg like all other motor companies out there with there 4.0's then i would say yea cool they have something to brag about. but there not that great in my i.m.o. pretty sad to have the same motor since 01 and have them still under power. The ranger is dead it self thats why ford is killing them off in the U.S because the new f150's will be pushing more M.P.G's in a full size truck now.
Well said.
__________________
Future Ranger Owner
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-29-2010, 11:49 AM
bud0810 bud0810 is offline
Like the Forums
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 35
Default Re: Reliability

i love my 3.0 256,000 and still running strong no oil leak and it dosent burn oil either i get anywere from 17 mpg to 25 mpg and have the power to haul 2100lbs of logs in the back although i have done more then a couple mods i would buy anouther one in a heart beat the only problem i have had with my truck has been the 3 slave cylinders lol
__________________
99 4x4 3.0 stick 3inch lift on 31s want 33s
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:34 PM
naturecakezzz naturecakezzz is offline
black mamba!!!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,213
Default Re: Reliability

I had a 3.0 Taurus for a while but. The 4.0 ohv in my ranger now is amazing I must say 126,000 and purrs like a kitten.... well except for the valves lol
__________________
2000 ranger 4.0v6 4x4 ext. Cab with a cap
Mods....
http://www.fordrangerforum.com/proje...start-now.html
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-29-2010, 02:10 PM
DrIftKi7Vg DrIftKi7Vg is offline
Sunny Soonkyu <3
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,401
Send a message via AIM to DrIftKi7Vg Send a message via MSN to DrIftKi7Vg
Default Re: Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron_ariens View Post
It's not JUNK, I think that is really harsh.

It has enough power for a daily driver, I've never had a problem with a lack of power.

The gas mileage is not the best, but I'd rather pay a bit more in gas and have an engine that I can trust to run everyday without any doubt.
Agree! I have a 3.0 flex and I love it. It wasn't getting enough power due to POS Autolite spark plugs but changed them to Bosch plus 4 platinum and bosch wires and now I love the push it gives me. I can finally go up to 6000 RPM when before I can only hit 4500 RPM max ^_^
__________________
Sunny
2002 Ford Ranger Edge Flex Fuel 2wd
LED Crazy!
Complete Pioneer Audio setup
5000k HID Projector retrofit and 3000k Fogs
Super Turbo Dynomax Exhaust
Mustang Dome Light Mod - Fog Light Mod
Achilles Desert Hawk 255/45/20 with 20'' rims

Much more!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
reliability gmac87 General Ford Ranger Discussion 23 10-07-2009 07:33 AM